Upload
doanhanh
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
RENEWABLE ENERGY IN THE U.S.WASTE-TO-ENERGY
Swedish Trade Council, USA January, 2008
Co-Sponsors and Collaborating Partners:
1
• Executive summary– Executive summary (English version) 4 – Executive summary (svensk version) 6
• Introduction and background 8
• Waste-to-Energy– Sector overview waste-to-energy 14– Key players in the U.S. 31– Customers and procurement process 34– Competition 47– Summary waste-to-energy (English version) 51– Sammanfattning waste-to-energy (svensk version) 53
CONTENTPage
2
• Conclusions and recommendations– Conclusions and recommendations (English version) 55– Sammanfattning och slutsatser (svensk version) 58
• Appendix– A List of interviewed people 61– B Renewable Energy in the U.S. – general information 66– C Waste-to-energy facilities, upgrades and expansions 69– D Technical issues 86– E Legal issues 88– F Venture capital 90
CONTENTPage
3
• Executive summary – Executive summary (English version)– Executive summary (svensk version)
• Introduction and background
• Waste-to-Energy
• Conclusions and recommendations
• Appendix
CONTENT
4
• Even if the last 15 years have been tough for the waste-to-energy industry in the U.S., there are now indications of an increased interest. The main reasons are:
– Increased electricity prices makes waste-to-energy production more profitable. Higher fuel prices also increase costs for transportation of waste to landfills
– There are important state and regional incentives and initiatives in place that are favorable to waste-to-energy production
• There are also factors that make the market challenging: – The number of waste-to-energy facilities has continuously declined in the last 15 years and
there are currently no new facilities being built – There is still a degree of public and political resistance in the U.S. towards waste-to-energy
• U.S. companies and plant managers on a general level express great interest in European companies and solutions. Those with specific knowledge of the Swedish WTE industry all rate it very highly
• Areas Swedish companies should look into are flue gas cleaning and consulting
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - Waste-to-energy
Waste-to-energy
5
• Executive summary – Executive summary (English version)– Executive summary (svensk version)
• Introduction and background
• Waste-to-Energy
• Conclusions and recommendations
• Appendix
CONTENT
6
• Studien visar att även om de senaste 15 åren har varit tuffa för branschen som helhet, så finns det nu indikationer på ett ökat intresse för avfallsförbränning. Huvudorsakerna är:
– Ökat pris för elektricitet gör energiutvinning från avfallsförbränning mer lönsam. Högre bränslepriser gör det också dyrare att transportera avfall till deponier
– Det finns flera viktiga incitament på delstatlig och regional nivå som gör avfallsförbränning med energiutvinning mer fördelaktigt
• Det finns också ett antal utmaningar för branschen: – Antalet anläggningar för avfallsförbränning har minskat kontinuerligt de senaste 15 åren och
det byggs för tillfället inga nya anläggningar – Det finns fortfarande ett visst politiskt och allmänt motstånd i USA mot avfallsförbränning
• Det är även intressant att notera att många amerikanska företag och anläggningsansvariga är positivt inställda till europeiska företag. I de fall där man specifikt känner till vad Sverige gör inom området är man överlag mycket positivt inställd till svenska företag
• Områden med särskilt intresse för svenska företag är rökgasrening och konsulttjänster
SAMMANFATTNING- Avfallshantering med energiutvinning
Avfallsförbränning med energiutvinning
7
• Executive summary
• Introduction and background
• Waste-to-Energy
• Conclusions and recommendations
• Appendix
CONTENT
8
BACKGROUND• Sweden is internationally recognized as one of the leading countries when it comes to
environmental regulation and a successful private-public partnership. Many Swedish companies decided early on to invest in the development of new technical solutions in order to reduce emissions to air and water. Combined with a strategic approach to environmental issues and many years of experience, Swedish companies have a strong position in a number of environmental sectors
• The U.S. environmental technology market is the world’s largest. There is a growing interest in the U.S. for environmental technologies, particularly in the area of renewable energies, among investors, large corporations, policymakers and the public
• The Swedish Embassy in Washington D.C., the Consulates General of Sweden in New York and Los Angeles and the Swedish Energy Agency, have requested the assistance of the Swedish Trade Council (STC) to identify and assess Swedish business opportunities in the renewable energy sector in the U.S. The project should include a comprehensive and concrete analysis of business opportunities for Swedish companies within the areas of waste-to-energy (WTE), biogas, and ethanol
• The direction and outline of this project have been discussed with a number of Swedish organizations, including the Swedish Energy Agency, Swentec and IVL. The project team has taken advantage of this network and the competence and knowledge available in these organizations
Introduction
9
OBJECTIVE AND KEY ISSUES
The objective of the project is to evaluate Swedish business opportunities within the U.S. renewable energy sector with a focus on waste-to-energy (WTE), biogas and ethanol
In order to meet the objective the STC will address the following key issues:- What does the U.S. market for WTE, biogas and ethanol look like in terms of market size
and structure?- What are the key trends in the U.S. market and what affects the development?- What are the key regulations affecting the market? - What types of promotional activities would be beneficial for Swedish companies?
Introduction
10
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
International District Energy AssociationIDEA
Environmental Protection AgencyEPA
Database of State Incentives for Renewables and EfficiencyDSIRE
Department of EnergyDOE
Municipal Solid WasteMSW
International Solid Waste AssociationIWSA
Renewable Portfolio StandardRPS
Renewable Fuels StandardRFS
Waste-To-EnergyWTE
National Solid Wastes Management AssociationNSWMA
Name/ explanation Abbreviation
Introduction
11
TERMS AND TRANSLATIONS
EnergiåtervinningEnergy recovery
AvfallsförbränningsanläggningWTE plant
Avfallsförbränning med energiåtervinningWaste-to-energy (WTE)
HushållsavfallMunicipal solid waste (MSW)
Brännbart avfall - avfall som brinner utan energitillskott efter det attförbränningsprocessen startat
Combustible waste
Deponi - kontrollerat upplag för avfall som inte avses flyttasLandfill
TranslationTerm
Introduction
12
CONVERSION OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
1 kg = 2,2 pounds Pounds (lbs)
1 U.S. mile = 1.609 344 kilometerMiles
1 American gallon = 3,785 literGallon
European conversionU.S. weights and measures
Introduction
13
• Executive summary
• Introduction and background
• Waste-to-Energy– Sector overview waste-to-energy– Key players in the U.S.– Customers and procurement process– Competition– Summary WTE
• Conclusions and recommendations
• Appendix
CONTENT
14
SOLID WASTE GENERATION HAS ALMOST TRIPPLED IN THE U.S. SINCE 1960- A total of 245 million tons of solid waste was generated in the U.S. in 2005
The U.S. generates 60% more solid waste per person per year when compared to SwedenSource: U.S. EPA ”Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2005”, Avfall Sverige
U.S. municipal solid waste generationMillion of tons
In USA 4,5 lbs (2.04 kg) of solidwaste is generated per personand day, compared to 2,8 lbs (1.27 kg) per person and day inSweden
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2003 2005
Waste-to-energy
15
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE HANDLING DIFFERS BETWEEN STATES- There are a number of federal regulations and EPA programs states have to follow
• Traditionally, residents pay for waste collection and disposal through property taxes or a fixed fee
• Many communities use the Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) program, which means that residents are charged a fee for each bag or can of waste they throw away (the more you throw away, the more you pay)
• The Clean Air Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act are the most important federal regulations for the waste-to-energy industry
• There are a total of 13 EPA programs and initiatives on municipal solid waste
Some states have stricter regulations than the ones set on a federal levelSource: U.S. EPA Waste-to-energy
16
THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CONSIDERS WASTE-TO-ENERGY PREFERABLE TO LANDFILLING- But source reduction/reuse and recycling/composting are preferred to combustion
Source: U.S. EPA, Avfall Sverige
Solid waste management hierarchy
Sourcereductionand reuse
Recycling/composting
Combustion with energy recovery
Landfilling and incineration without energy recovery
Most preferred
Least preferred
Waste-to-energy has a stronger position in Sweden, where it is considered equal to recycling
The U.S. EPA states that waste-to-energy facilities are ”clean, reliable, renewable source of energy” that produce electricity with ”less environmental impact than almost any other source of electricity.”
Waste-to-energy
17
LANDFILLING IS THE MOST COMMON WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE U.S.- Only 13.6% of the waste is used for energy production
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
USA Sweden
Recycling/compostingWaste-to-energyLandfill
Source: MSW in the US: Facts & Figures, U.S. EPA, Avfall Sverige
Different waste treatment methods in USA compared to Sweden
The amount of waste used for energy production is low in the U.S. compared to Sweden
Waste-to-energy
18
WASTE-TO-ENERGY PLANTS ARE COMMONLY NOT USED FOR DISTRICT HEATING IN THE U.S.- Most of them only generate electricity
Sources: Anders Rydåker,St. Paul District Heating, Priscilla Ulloa, “Potential for Combined Heat and Power and District Heating and Cooling from Waste-to-Energy Facilities in the U.S.”
The amount of WTE used for district heating is low in the U.S. compared to Sweden
In Sweden, 15% of the district heating production originates from waste-to-energy production
“There is no official statistic on how many waste-to-energy facilities in the U.S. are used for district heating production, but they are not many.”
Anders Rydåker, District Energy St. Paul
“The use of heat recovered from municipal waste combustion for district heating is still small in the U.S.”
Priscilla Ulloa, Earth and Environmental Engineering
Waste-to-energy
19
0
510
1520
25
3035
40
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2003 2005 2007
THE AMOUNT OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE USED FOR ENERGY RECOVERY INCREASED DRAMATICALLY AFTER 1980- However, the combustion of municipal solid waste with energy recovery has not increased since 1990
An est. total of 28.7 million tons of trash will be processed in U.S. WTE plants during 2007Source: U.S. EPA ”Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2005”, MSW Management (Berenyl, Rogolf)
Combustion with energy recovery in the U.S. 1960-2007Millions of tons
The main reasons for the strong increase of energy recovery from municipal solid waste 1980-1990 were the need of finding environmentally sound alternatives to unregulated open dumps, and the need to develop alternative energy resources in order to decrease the oil dependence.
Waste-to-energy
20
1995 2000 20051975 1990
THE NUMBER OF WTE PLANTS HAVE DECREASED SUBSTANTIALLY SINCE 1990
2007
::Source: IWSA, EPA, Eileen B. Berenyi and Marc J. Rogoff, MSW Management
Waste-to-energy becomescommercially available in the U.S. Approximately 180 plants are constructed during the 70s and 80s
The total number of waste-to-energy plants has decreased to 102
The MACT* standards requires federal governments and industry to upgrade air pollution equipment to a total value of US$ 1 billion
There are a total of 87 waste-to-energy plants in the U.S.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires federal governments to purchase 7,5% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2013
*MACT – Maximum Achievable Control Technology – standards set by EPA for municipal waste combustors
The first new waste-to-energy capacity in a decade is being built in Fort Meyers, FL
Tax-law changes, unfavorable court rulings and cheap tipping fees at landfills brings a halt to the waste-to-energy development
Policy changes, construction of new large landfills and profitability problems for many WTE companies are the main reasons to the decreased number of facilities
20062004
WTE facilities are included as ”qualified facilities” for receiving production tax credits
Waste-to-energy
Many waste-to-energy companies experience profitability problems
21
THERE ARE 87 WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITIES IN 26 U.S. STATES- Most of them are located in the Northeast
The total generated energy from WTE facilities in the U.S. is nearly 2,700 MW per year
States with operating plants
WEST8 plants7,153 ton./day
NORTHEAST43 plants48,773 ton./day
MIDWEST16 plants10,223 ton./day
SOUTH20 plants26,567 ton./day
Source: The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants Waste-to-energy
Hawaii
Alaska
22Source: National Solid Waste Management Association, Resource Recycling
In regions where land is less expensive and the tipping fees are low, recycling and waste-to-energy will continue to be at an economic disadvantage
Landfill tipping fees, 1985-2002$/Ton
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
1985 1986 1987 1988 1990 1992 1995 1998 2000 2002 2004
NortheastMid-AtlanticWestMidwestSouthWest CentralSouth Central
WASTE-TO-ENERGY IS MOST COMMON WHERE LANDFILL TIPPING FEES ARE HIGH
Waste-to-energy
23
THERE HAVE BEEN FEW NEW WASTE-TO-ENERGY PLANTS BUILT IN THE U.S. THE LAST 15 YEARS
• Low price of land disposal and low tipping fees have made landfills more profitable than waste-to-energy solutions
• The energy price has been low and there have been few incentives for waste-to-energy production
• Only a small number of the waste-to-energy facilities are used for district heating
• The public and political acceptance for waste-to-energy has been low
• Many waste-to-energy companies have had profitability problems
“The profitability has not been there for waste-to-energy. It has been difficult to compete with landfills.”
Ted Michaels, Integrated Waste Services Association
Source: Ted Michaels, IWSA, Earth Engineering Center Waste-to-energy
24
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Price electricity Price diesel
THE SITUATION FOR WTE HOWEVER IS STARTING TO CHANGE- Increased electricity price makes waste-to-energy more profitable. Higher fuel prices also increase costs for transportation of waste to landfills
Source: Ted Michaels, IWSA, Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council, Energy Information Administration
Cents per gallon (1 gallon = 3,785 liter)Cents per kilowatthour
Electricity and diesel prices in the U.S. 2000-2007
The trend is that landfills move away from population centers, which also further increases transportation costs
Waste-to-energy
25
THE RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT COULD BE AN IMPORTANT INCENTIVE FOR THE WTE INDUSTRY
Source: EPA, Ted Michaels, IWSA, Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy & Efficiency, DSIRE
A per kilowatt-hour tax credit for electricity generated by ”qualified energy resources”(of which waste-to-energy facilities are included). The tax credit is currently 1 cent/kWh for electricity produced for a period of 10 years.
The Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit
“Waste energy is a capital intensive industry. Financing is an important part of that. The economics of the facility are critical about whether it gets built. The one cent per kilowatt tax credit can make a key difference about whether it gets built. The tax credit has proven over time to be the most effective assistance you can provide to renewable industries.”
Ted Michaels, Integrated Waste Services Association
Waste-to-energy
26
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF STATE AND REGIONAL INITIATIVES AND PROGRAMS THAT ALSO COULD BE IMPORTANT INCENTIVES
Half of the U.S. states use funds to support energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. Twelve of the states coordinate their investments in renewable energy through the “Clean Energy States Alliance”: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.
Public Benefit Funds
Source: U.S. DoE, U.S. EPA
There are a number of regional initiatives to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and increase renewable energy generation, such as the Western Climate Initiative, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), Western Governors’ Association (WGA): Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative, West Coast Governors’ Global Warming Initiative, Powering the Plains, New England Governors: Climate Change Action Plan (NEG-ECP) and the Southwest Climate Change Initiative.
Regional initiatives
Waste-to-energy
27
THERE ARE TWO IMPORTANT FEDERAL REGULATIONS THAT OPERATORS OF WTE FACILITIES HAVE TO ADAPT TO
The Clean Air Act The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Regulates operating conditions, monitoring, reporting, training and safety requirements. Municipal waste combustors must comply with the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards. The MACT standards are revised every five years (it was last updated on 10 May 2006).
Requires testing of the plants’ ash residue to determine the ash is non-hazardous and properly disposed or reused.
Source: U.S. EPA, IWSA Waste-to-energy
28
SOME STATES HAVE POLICY AGREEMENTS AND STANDARDS THAT COULD BE IMPORTANT FOR THE WTE INDUSTRY
25 U.S. states have adapted the RPS standard, which is a policy that obligates each retail seller of electricity to supply its retail customers a certain amount of electricity from renewable energy sources. It can be done by either owning a renewable energy facility and producing its own power, or purchasing renewable electricity from someone else's facility.
The Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS)
Source: U.S. DoE, U.S. EPA, U.S. Mayors Conference
600 mayors have signed an agreement for a 7% reduction in greenhouse gases from 1990 levels by 2012 (which is in line with the Kyoto protocol) and recognize waste-to-energy technologies as a means to achieve that goal.
U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
Waste-to-energy
29
THERE ARE TWO MAIN EVENTS WHERE A LARGE SHARE OF THE INDUSTRY PARTICIPATES EVERY YEAR
• NAWTEC is recognized as the leading industry technical conference and trade show focusing on municipal waste-to-energy
• The exhibition is attended by many of the leading waste-to-energy professionals and decision makers, and offers networking opportunities as well as opportunities to showcase products and services
• It is arranged in Philadelphia, PA, May 19-21, 2008
• The leading event for solid waste professionals
• The focus is on bringing solid waste companies and buyers together
• The 2008 event will be held October 21-23 in Tampa, FL and the 2009 event September 22-24 in Long Beach, California
Tradeshows and workshops are important for making business connections within the U.S. waste-to-energy industry
NAWTEC WASTECON
Waste-to-energy
30
• Executive summary
• Introduction and background
• Waste-to-Energy– Sector overview waste-to-energy– Key players in the U.S.– Customers and procurement process– Competition– Summary WTE
• Conclusions and recommendations
• Appendix
CONTENT
31
KEY PLAYERS INFLUENCING THE WASTE-TO-ENERGY INDUSTRY
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Regulates operating conditions, monitoring, reporting,
training and safety requirements- Regulates emissions and pollution control systems through
the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards
- Monitors and tests ash residue generated from combustion
U.S. Department of Energy- The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires federal governments to purchase 7,5% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2013, of which waste-to-energy production is included
Leading states adopting WTE solutions
- New York, Florida, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Connecticut have most operating waste-to-energy plants in the U.S. More than half of all the plants are located in these six states
U.S. Conference of Mayors- An official non-partisan organization for cities with populations exceeding 30 000 people. Through the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, 600 mayors have signed an agreement for a 7% reduction in greenhouse gases from 1990 levels by 2012
www.usmayors.org
FEDERAL LEVEL
STATE/REGIONAL LEVEL
Sources: Research, interviews, EPA, DoE, U.S. Conference of Mayors Waste-to-energy
www.epa.gov www.energy.gov
32
KEY PLAYERS INFLUENCING THE WASTE-TO-ENERGY INDUSTRY
Integrated Waste Services Association (IWSA)- Represents the waste-to-energy industry and communities that own WTE facilities. Current IWSA members own and operate 66 of the 87 WTE facilities that operate nationwide
Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)- The leading professional association in the solid waste management field. The association has 7,700 members throughout North America
Environmental Industry Associations (EIA)
- The parent organization for the National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA) and the Waste Equipment Technology association (WASTEC). EIA supports these associations through research and administrative, legal, federal affairs and public relations resources
www.envasns.org
The Waste-to-Energy Researchand Technology Council (WTERT) - A top-tier-technical group that brings together engineers, scientists, and managers from industry, universities, and government with the objective of advancing the goals of sustainable waste management
www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS/GROUPS
Sources: Research , interviews, IWSA, SWANA, WTERT, EIA Waste-to-energy
www.wte.org www.swana.org
33
• Executive summary
• Introduction and background
• Waste-to-Energy– Sector overview waste-to-energy– Key players in the U.S.– Customers and procurement process– Competition– Summary WTE
• Conclusions and recommendations
• Appendix
CONTENT
34
ALMOST 60% OF THE WTE PLANTS ARE OWNED BY MUNICIPALITIES - But 80% of the facilities are operated by private companies
In Sweden, approximately 80% of the waste-to-energy plants are owned and operated by municipalities
Source: The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants, Avfall Sverige
Municipalities56%
Private companies
42%
Others (e.g. military)2%
Facility owners Facility operators
Municipalities17%
Private companies
82%
Others (e.g. military)1%
Waste-to-energy
35
THREE COMPANIES OPERATE 63% OF ALL THE FACILITIES- Covanta, Wheelabrator and Veolia
Source: The 2007 IWSA Directory Of Waste-to-Energy Plants, company information
Number of facilities
32 31
168
Covanta Energy
WheelabratorTechnologies
Veolia ES Waste-to-Energy Inc.
Others
Waste-to-energy
36
THE LEADING WTE FURNACE TECHNOLOGY IS MASS BURN- 60 out of 87 waste-to-energy plants use the technology
Mass burn – generated electricity and/or steam from trash by feeding MSW into large furnaces
Refused-derived fuel (RDF) – combustion of homogenized fuel in a combustion chamber
Modular – similar to mass burn facilities, but smaller and typically prefabricated offsite and assembled where they are needed
RWW – rotary water wall combustor mainly fed by yard and wood products
Some projects with emerging technologies, such as gasification, are underway but they are still unusual
57
15
60
87
RWW Modular RDF Mass Burn Total number ofWTE plants
Number of operating plants
Source: The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants Waste-to-energy
37
CONSTRUCTION OF A WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITY
Financing/contracts
• Identification of appropriate site
• Proper zoning and land use conformance
• Environmental permits
• Utility interconnections
• Ash disposal capacity
• Waste supply commitments
• Waste characterization
Site preparations Construction
• Federal environmental regulations and programs
• Regional and state regulations
• Material purchase agreements
• Power purchase agreement
• Current cost of waste disposal
• Availability and cost of disposal alternatives
• Site control through lease or ownership
• Acceptable credit worthiness of all project participants
Source: Waste-To-Energy Research and Technology Council Waste-to-energy
38
MOST EXISTING WTE FACILITIES ARE FINANCED THROUGH PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATORY POLICY ACT (PURPA) CONTRACTS
PURPA is less important today than it was 20 years ago. The renewable production tax credit* will probably become a more important incentive
Source: Integrated Waste Services Association
“PURPA has probably been the most effective single measure in promoting renewable energy. But in the last 15 years, it has not been decisive for the number of new waste-to-energy facilities built.”
Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA)
• Enacted in 1978, Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act was intended to encourage more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly commercial energy production
• Waste-to-energy plants are, together with a number of other alternative energy sources, defined under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), as qualified facilities (QFs)
• Utility companies are obliged to purchase energy from QF facilities based on a pricing structure referred to as avoided cost rates
• PURPA is starting to become out of date, since many of the contracts during the 1980s are expiring
Ted Michaels, Integrated Waste Services Association
* See slide 27Waste-to-energy
39
It is important that Swedish equipment suppliers are known to the plant managers and technology consultants making equipment selection decisions
EQUIPMENT IS OFTEN PURCHASED THROUGH A TENDER PROCESS- But personal contact is also very important
::Source: Interviews
“We always use competitive bidding. We have some suppliers that we have been working with for
a very long time. But we still prefer to use competitive bidding.”
Jeff HarnleyXcel Energy, Minnesota
“We have a technology license with VonRoll, which means they provide us with grate, boiler
and emission control systems. For all other equipment, we use a bidding process. We are
always interested in getting in contact with companies that could offer better technologies
than the ones we use now.”
Mark LyonsWheelabrator
“We have a bidding list for the routine maintenance we do. We have a long relationship
with most of the companies on it, but we are always looking for new technologies.”
Matt EatonCommerce Refuse-to-Energy Facility, Los Angeles
Waste-to-energy
40:
THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO NEW WTE FACILITIES BEING BUILT - Opportunities are within expansions and upgrades of existing facilities
Call +1 603 929 3000 and ask for David Raymond, VP of Engineering and Construction. They are open for discussions on opportunities and how to get on their bidding list.
Confidential regarding upgrades and expansions. They have a technology license agreement with VonRoll and use them for all equipment related to graders, boilers and air pollution control systems. For all other equipment, they are always looking for better technologies and encourage Swedish companies to contact them for discussions on opportunities.
The second largest waste-to-energy operator in the U.S. Operates 16 waste-to-energy facilities. The headquarter is in Hampton, NH
Wheelabrator
They have suppliers they’ve worked with for a very long time, but they still use competitive bidding for all upgrades. Contact Jeff Harnly, Plant Manager at Xcel Energy in Minnesota, +1 651 385-5603 for more information on opportunities and how to get on their bidding list.
They are currently looking into boiler optimization techniques for all of their facilities.
Xcel owns and operates 3 facilities: Xcel Energy Red Wing Steam Plant in Red Wing, MN; Xcel Energy Wilmarth Plant in Mankato, MN and Xcel Energy La Crosse County Resource Recovery Facility in La Crosse, WI.
Xcel Energy
Contact Ted Hoefler, VP Operations or Scott Whitney, VP Business Development, +1 973 882 9000 for discussions on opportunities.
They perform continuous expansions and upgrades of existing facilities. They have a technology license agreement with Martin Gmbh which means they supply them with all the stoker grate equipment and air pollution equipment.
The largest waste-to-energy operator in the U.S. Currently operates 31 waste-to-energy facilities. The headquarter is in Fairfield, NY.
Covanta
Equipment purchase proceduresUpgrades/expansionsDescriptionOperator
::Source: STC Interviews Waste-to-energy
41:
MUNICIPAL OPERATORS ARE MORE DEPENDENT ON FUNDING FOR UPGRADES AND EXPANSIONS THAN PRIVATE OPERATORS
Contact Plant Manager John Watson, +1 801 614 5603, for information about future needs.
No upgrades or expansions planned at the moment, but it might change in the near future depending on next year funding.
See appendix CWasatch Integrated Waste Management District, Layton, UT
Contac the Plant Manager Al Canady, +1 910 798 4435 for information on future needs and opportunities.
No upgrades or expansions planned at the moment, but it might change in the near future depending on 2008 funding.
See appendix CNew Hanover County – Wastec, Wilmington, NC
Contact the Plant Manager Peter Olmscheid, +1 320 763 9340, to discuss future needs.
They are currently expanding. A new combustor, boiler and air pollution control system will be installed during next year. They are finalizing the bidding process and are basically set on which technologies and vendors to use.
See appendix CPope/Douglas Solid Waste Management, Alexandria, MN
Contact John Helmers, Plant Manager and Project Leader for the expansion, +1 507 328 7070 for discussions on how to participate in the bidding process.
They will start an expansion project in order to double the size of the plant. A bidding process will start by the end of 2007-beginning of 2008.
See appendix COlmsted Waste-to-Energy Facility, Rochester, MN
Equipment purchase proceduresUpgrades/expansionsDescriptionFacility
::Source: STC Interviews Waste-to-energy
A comprehensive list of current upgrades and equipment purchase procedures is published in the appendix
42
THE NORTHEAST STATES, FLORIDA AND MINNESOTA OFFER THE MOST PROMISING BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES- More than 70% of all the waste-to-energy facilities are located in these states
Source: Market research, interviews, The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants Waste-to-energy
Washington1 facility
Oregon1 facility
California3 facilities
Alaska1 facility
Hawaii1 facility
Utah1 facility
Minnesota9 facilities Wisconsin
2 facilities
Iowa1 facility
Maine4 facilities
New York10 facilities New Hampshire
2 facilities
Massachusetts7 facilities
Connecticut6 facilities
New Jersey5 facilities
Maryland3 facilities
Pennsylvania6 facilities
Virginia5 facilities
North Carolina1 facility
South Carolina1 facility
Florida11 facilities
Alabama1 facility
Georgia1 facility
43
A KEY TO SUCCESS ON THE U.S. MARKET IS STRONG RELATIONSHIPS WITH COVANTA, WHEELABRATOR AND VEOLIA- Together they operate 55 out of 87 plants, mainly in the Northeast states and Florida
Covanta EnergyWheelabrator TechnologiesVeolia ES Waste-to-Energy Inc.
Waste-to-energySource: Covanta, Wheelabrator, Veolia
44
IT IS AN ADVANTAGE TO BE PRESENT IN THE U.S.- Either through a partner or by establishing an own entity
“It is important to be established in the U.S. You have to participate in exhibitions, be visible and build networks. My advice is also to find a reliable American partner.”
“To be successful on the U.S. market I think you have to have an American partner. The waste-to-energy industry is conservative and you have to know the culture of the industry. To say ‘this is the way we do it in Europe’ is not a very successful strategy.”
Ulf Hagström, Ecomb AB
Anders Rydåker,District Energy St. Paul
Source: Market research, interviews Waste-to-energy
• Interviews show that customers prefer to purchase equipment from companies they have established relationships with
• You need to understand the specific conditions on the U.S. market
• Exhibitions, conferences and other industry events are good opportunities to meet with key people from the industry
• Evaluate potential partners carefully, don’t go for ”first available”
45
EVEN IF THE WTE MARKET IS TURNING AROUND IN THE U.S. THERE ARE SOME ENTRY BARRIERS ONE SHOULD BE AWARE OF• The waste-to-energy market in the U.S.
has not been very favorable the last 15 years, since the number or facilities steadily have decreased
• There is still a degree of public and political resistance in the U.S. towards waste-to-energy
• It is difficult to sell from Sweden. You should have representation in the U.S. which few Swedish waste-to-energy companies do
• The current low value of the US dollar is negative for Swedish exporters
“There is of course potential on the U.S. market, there are a lot of people looking into alternative energy solutions right now. But we feel that the political interest still isn’t there”
Anders Södergren, ÅF Consulting
“There are not many Swedish waste-to-energy companies present in the U.S. that I know of. I think it is difficult to sell and deliver equipment from Sweden.”
Anders Rydåker, District Energy St. Paul, Minnesota
Source: Interviews, market research Waste-to-energy
46
• Executive summary
• Introduction and background
• Waste-to-Energy– Sector overview waste-to-energy– Key players in the U.S.– Customers and procurement process– Competition– Summary WTE
• Conclusions and recommendations
• Appendix
CONTENT
47
Von Roll Inova
THE WASTE-TO-ENERGY INDUSTRY IN THE U.S. IS MAINLY DOMINATED BY A FEW LARGE COMPANIES* 1(3)
Martin Gmbh
• The leading furnace supplier in the U.S. They have a technology license agreement with Covanta, meaning that they supply them with all their stoker grate and air pollution equipment
• The company is based in Germany
www.martingmbh.de
Foster Wheeler Fisia Babcock Environment GmbH
• The second largest furnace supplier in the U.S. They have technology license agreement with Wheelabrator, meaning that they supply them will all their furnaces, boilers and air pollution equipment
• The company is based in Switzerland
www.vonrollinova.ch
• Operates through two business groups: The Engineering & Construction group and the Global Power Group. The latter makes steam-generating units and related equipment for power and industrial plants, including fluidized-bed and conventional boilers
• The company is based in Clinton, NJ
www.fwc.com
• Specialized in waste treatment, flue gas cleaning, mechanical biological waste treatment and solar energy recovery
• The company is based in Germany
www.fisia-babcock.com
Waste-to-energySource: Company web sites
* The selection has mainly been done through interviews with The Integrated Waste Services Association (IWSA) and The Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council (WTERT)
48
Jansen Combustion & Boiler Technologies Inc.
THE WASTE-TO-ENERGY INDUSTRY IN THE U.S. IS MAINLY DOMINATED BY A FEW LARGE COMPANIES 2(3)
Babcock Power, Inc.
• Specialized in engineering, manufacturing, construction, and aftermarket products and services for heat exchangers, HRSGs, environmental systems, and steam generators
• The company is based in Danvers, MA
www.babcockpower.com
Dvirka & Bartilucci Consulting Engineers HDR, Inc.
• An engineering consulting specialized in planning, investigation, feasibility study, design and construction management. Some of the expertise areas are solid waste management, brown field assessment and air quality studies and emissions permitting
• The company is based in Woodbury, NY
www.dvirkaandbartilucci.com
• Specialized in combustion and industrial boiler technology. They provide full-service process and design engineering, equipment procurement, construction capabilities, field services, and maintenance support
• The company is based in Kirkland, WA
www.jansenboiler.com
• One of the leading architectural, engineering and consulting firm working with waste reduction, recycling, material as well as energy recovery and residual disposal. They are also specialized in waste-to-energy facility design
• The company is based in Omaha, NE
www.hdrinc.com
Waste-to-energySource: Company web sites
49
THE WASTE-TO-ENERGY INDUSTRY IN THE U.S. IS MAINLY DOMINATED BY A FEW LARGE COMPANIES 3(3)
Malcolm Pirnie
EMCO Chemical Distributors Inc.
• Provides a number of waste services such as feasibility studies, insurance and financial advising, operations, training and safety and advising regarding permits and authorizations
• The company is based in North Chicago, IL
www.emcochem.com
Joule’ Industrial Contracting
• Specialized in environmental management and restoration projects, including solid- and hazardous waste management. Services include planning and feasibility studies, pollution control designs, construction observation, and facility management
• The company is based in White Plains, NY
www.pirnie.com
• An industrial contractor providing commercial, industrial, and technical personnel to clients on a temporary or project basis. Some of the areas they are specialized in are plant relocations and retrofits and major maintenance projects
• The company is based in Edison, NJ
www.jouleindustrialcontractors.com
Waste-to-energySource: Company web sites
50
• Executive summary
• Introduction and background
• Waste-to-Energy– Sector overview waste-to-energy– Key players in the U.S.– Customers and procurement process– Competition– Summary WTE– Sammanfattning (på svenska)
• Conclusions and recommendations
• Appendix
CONTENT
51
• Even if the last 15 years have been tough for the waste-to-energy industry in the U.S., there are now indications of an increased interest. The main reasons are:
– Increased electricity price makes waste-to-energy production more profitable. Higher fuel prices also increase costs for transportation of waste to landfills
– There are important state and regional incentives and regulations in place that are favorable to waste-to-energy production
• There are also factors that make the market challenging: – The number of waste-to-energy facilities have continuously decreased the last 15 years and
there are currently no new facilities being built – There is still a degree of public and political resistance in the U.S. towards waste-to-energy
• It is also to be noted that U.S. companies and plant managers on a general level express great interest in European companies and solutions. Those with specific knowledge of the Swedish WTE industry all rate it very highly.
The waste-to-energy industry in the U.S. shows signs of positive development but there are still some hurdles to overcome
SUMMARY WASTE-TO-ENERGY
52
• Executive summary
• Introduction and background
• Waste-to-Energy– Sector overview waste-to-energy– Key players in the U.S.– Customers and procurement process– Competition– Summary WTE– Sammanfattning (på svenska)
• Conclusions and recommendations
• Appendix
CONTENT
53
• Studien visar att även om de senaste 15 åren har varit tuffa för branschen som helhet, så finns det nu indikationer på ett ökat intresse för avfallsförbränning. Huvudorsakerna är:
– Ökat pris för elektricitet gör energiutvinning från avfallsförbränning mer lönsam. Högre bränslepriser gör det också dyrare att transportera avfall till deponier
– Det finns flera viktiga incentiv på delstatlig och regional nivå som gör avfallsförbränning med energiutvinning mer fördelaktigt
• Men det finns också ett antal utmaningar för branschen: – Antalet anläggningar för avfallsförbränning har minskat kontinuerligt de senaste 15 åren och
det byggs för tillfället inga nya anläggningar – Det finns fortfarande ett visst politiskt och allmänt motstånd i USA mot avfallsförbränning
• Det är även intressant att notera att många amerikanska företag och anläggningsansvariga är positivt inställda till europeiska företag. I de fall där man specifikt känner till vad Sverige gör inom området är man överlag mycket positivt inställd till svenska företag.
Avfallsförbränning med energiutvinning uppvisar som bransch för tillfället en positiv utveckling, men det finns fortfarande hinder att överkomma
SAMMANFATTNING AVFALLSHANTERING MED ENERGIUTVINNING
Avfallsförbränning med energiutvinning
54
• Executive summary
• Introduction and background
• Waste-to-Energy
• Conclusions and Recommendations– Conclusions and recommendations (English version)– Sammanfattning och slutsatser (svensk version)
• Appendix
CONTENT
55
CONCLUSIONS WASTE-TO-ENERGY
Key observations
• U.S. market dominated by a few large international players• There are no large Swedish manufacturers• Opportunities exist within the component side
• Swedish companies have cutting edge knowledge• U.S. market dominated by domestic companies• Swedish consulting companies currently do not prioritize
the U.S. market
• Sweden is relatively strong within flue gas cleaning• There are Swedish companies active on the U.S. market• Emission regulations are not as strict in the U.S. as in
Sweden, which is somewhat of a hurdle for market expansion
Attractiveness Industry sector
• Furnaces / boilers
• Consulting
• Air quality control systems / ash handling
Low
High
Waste-to-energy
56
Even if there are currently no new waste-to-energy facilities being built in the U.S., but there are opportunities for Swedish companies within expansions and upgrades of existing facilities
Equipment is often purchased through a tender process but personal contacts are also very important. Therefore it is important for Swedish equipment suppliers to be known to plant managers and technology consultants making equipment decisions
A key to success for Swedish companies is to develop good relations with Covanta, Wheelabrator and Veolia since they operate 63% of all the facilities in the U.S.
Swedish companies should focus their sales efforts on New York, Minnesota and Florida since they offer the most promising business opportunities
There is an advantage for Swedish companies to be present in the U.S. either through a partner or by establishing an own entity
RECOMMENDATIONS WASTE-TO-ENERGY
Waste-to-energy
57
• Executive summary
• Introduction and background
• Waste-to-Energy
• Conclusions and recommendations– Conclusions and recommendations (English version)– Sammanfattning och slutsatser (svensk version)
• Appendix
CONTENT
58
SLUTSATSER AVFALLSFÖRBRÄNNING MED ENERGIUTVINNING
Nyckelobservationer
• USA-marknaden domineras av ett fåtal stora internationella aktörer
• Det finns inga stora svenska tillverkare• Affärsmöjligheter finns på komponentsidan
• Svenska företag har ledande kunskaper• USA-marknaden domineras av inhemska aktörer• Merparten av de svenska företagen prioriterar för tillfället inte
USA-marknaden
• Sverige är relativt starka inom rökgasrening• Det finns svenska företag aktiva på USA-marknaden• Utsläppsregleringar är inte lika strikta i USA som i Sverige. Med
strängare regler hade svenska produkter troligtvis varit ännu mer attraktiva
MarknadspotentialBransch
• Fluidiserade bäddar /roasters
• Konsultföretag
• Rökgasrening / hanteringav restavfall
Låg
Hög
Avfallsförbränning med energiutvinning
59
Studien visar att även om det för tillfället inte byggs några nya anläggningar för avfallshantering med energiutvinning, så finns det affärsmöjligheter inom utbyggnader och uppgraderingar av befintliga anläggningar
Utrustning köps ofta genom en upphandlingsprocess. Men det är också viktigt att ha bra personliga relationer med personer ansvariga för utbyggnader och uppgraderingar
Ett sätt att komma in på marknaden är att närma sig och utveckla goda relationer med Covanta, Wheelabrator och Veolia. De driver inte mindre än 63% av alla anläggningar i USA
Svenska företag bör huvudsakligen fokusera sitt försäljningsarbete till de nordöstra delstaterna, Minnesota och Florida, eftersom de flesta affärsmöjligheter finns lokaliserade här
Det är en fördel för svenska företag att finnas etablerade på plats i USA, antingen genom ett eget företag eller genom en partner
REKOMMENDATIONER AVFALLSHANTERING MED ENERGIUTVINNING
60
• Executive summary
• Introduction and background
• Waste-to-Energy
• Conclusions and recommendations
• Appendix– A List of interviewed people– B Renewable Energy in the U.S. – general information– C Waste-to-energy facilities, upgrades and expansions– D Technical issues– E Legal issues– F Venture capital
CONTENT
61
LIST OF INTERVIEWED PEOPLE 1(4)
Research EngineerWerner SunkColumbia University, Earth Engineering Center
Head of International ProjectsRonny ArnbergBorlänge Energi
Responsible for the WTE sectionInge JohanssonAvfall Sverige
Procurement SpecialistEdie SchmidtAmes Municipal Electric Utility, Ames, IA
Vice PresidentAnders SödergrenÅF Process
Head of Waste management & landfillLars FritzÅF Consulting
PresidentAnders RydåkerDistrict Energy St. Paul
Master of Science CandidatePriscilla UlloaEarth Engineering Center, The Fu Foundation, School of Engineering and Applied Science
Supervising EngineerMatt EatonCommerce Refuse-to-Energy Facility, Los Angeles, CA
Director, Government Relations Paula SoosCovanta Energy
Contact TitleCompany/Organization
Appendix A
62
LIST OF INTERVIEWED PEOPLE 2(4)
AttorneyEric SapirHawkins, Delafield & Wood LLP
PresidentTed Michaels Integrated Waste Services Association, IWSA
Dipl. Ing. Ekkehart Gartner Martin Gmbh
Plant ManagerWayne HansonGreat River Energy: Elk River Station Waste-to-Energy, Elk River, MN
Chief EngineerKevin TrytekGreater Portland Resource Recovery Facility, Portland, ME
Maintenance ManagerBill MyersHampton – NASA Steam Plant, Hampton, VA
CEOLennart GustavssonGötaverken Miljö
Professor and Director Nickolas J. ThemelisEarth Engineering Center; WTERT
Environmental ScientistRobert SnowbargerEPA, Region 6
CEOUlf HögströmEcomb AB
Contact TitleCompany/Organization
Appendix A
63
LIST OF INTERVIEWED PEOPLE 3(4)
CEOHåkan RylanderSYSAV
CEOBo KarlssonSweco Viak
Plant ManagerJeff HuppertRed Wing Resource Recovery Facility, Red Wing, MN
Plant ManagerBrian SchmidtPerham Resource Recovery Facility, Perham, MN
Plant ManagerBill WilsonPolk County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Plant, Fosston, MN
Plant ManagerPeter OlmscheidPope/Douglas Solid Waste Management, Alexandria, MN
Plant ManagerFrank WisserOswego County Energy Recovery Facility, Fulton, NY
Plant ManagerAl CanadyNew Hanover County – Wastec, Wilmington, NC
Sales Manager North and South AmericaKarl KammeOpsis AB
Plant ManagerJohn HelmersOlmsted Waste-to-Energy Facility, Rochester, MN
Contact TitleCompany/Organization
Appendix A
64
LIST OF INTERVIEWED PEOPLE 4(4)
Wasatch Integrated Waste Management District, Layton, UT John WatsonWasatch Integrated Waste Management District, Layton, UT
Xcel Energy MinnesotaJeff HarnleyXcel Energy Minnesota
Contact TitleCompany/Organization
Appendix A
65
• Executive summary
• Introduction and background
• Waste-to-Energy
• Conclusions
• Appendix– A List of interviewed people– B Renewable Energy in the U.S. – general information– C Waste-to-energy facilities, upgrades and expansions– D Technical issues– E Legal issues– F Venture capital
CONTENT
66
VERY LOW COAL PRICES MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR RENEWABLE ENERGIES TO BE COST EFFICIENT IN THE U.S.
Appendix B
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
U.S Dollars per Metric Ton
Year
Source: Energy Information Administration
USA
UK
Germany
Austria
Coal is a very cheap energy source in the U.S. compared to most European countries
Steam coal prices for electricity generation
67
Nuclear19%
Coal49%
ONLY 2% OF THE ELECTRICITY PRODUCED IN THE U.S. COME FROM RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES OTHER THAN HYDROPOWER- Coal represent 49% of the total electricity generation in the U.S.
Electricity net Generation from Renewable Energy* (2006)100% = 96,7 Billion Kilowatthours
Source: EIA
Electricity Net Generation in the U.S (2006)100% = 4053 Billion Kilowatt-hours
Other Renewable 2%
Other**** 1%Petroleum 2%
* Excluding conventional hydroelectric power
41% Wood and derived fuels**
27% Wind
15% Geothermal
9% MSW Biogenic
6% Landfill gas2% Other biomass***
0,5% Solar** black liquor and wood/woodwaste solids and liquids *** agricultural bioproducts, sludge waste and other biomass solids, liquids and gases
Appendix B
Hydropower 7%
Natural Gas 20%
**** Non-biogenic municipal solid waste, batteries, chemicals, hydrogen, pitch, purchased steam, sulfur, tire-derived fuels and miscellaneous technologies.
68
• Executive summary
• Introduction and background
• Waste-to-Energy
• Conclusions
• Appendix– A List of interviewed people– B Renewable Energy in the U.S. – general information– C Waste-to-energy facilities, upgrades and expansions– D Technical issues– E Legal issues– F Venture capital
CONTENT
69:
UPGRADES AND EXPANSIONS OF EXISTING WTE FACILITIES 1(5)- Private operators
Call +1 603 929 3000 and ask for David Raymond, VP of Engineering and Construction. They are open for discussions on opportunities and how to get on their bidding list.
Confidential regarding upgrades and expansions. They have a technology license agreement with VonRoll and use them for all equipment related to graders, boilers and air pollution control systems. For all other equipment, they are always looking for better technologies and encourage Swedish companies to contact them for discussions on opportunities.
The second largest waste-to-energy operator in the U.S. Operates 16 waste-to-energy facilities. The headquarter is in Hampton, NH
Wheelabrator
Inquiries are referred to the corporate office in New York, +1 212 947 5824.
Confidential.The third largest waste-to-energy operator in the U.S. Operates 8 waste-to-energy facilities. The headquarter for Veolia ES Waste-to-Energy is in New York, NY
Veolia ES Waste-to-Energy Inc.
They have suppliers they’ve worked with for a very long time, but they still use competitive bidding for all upgrades. Contact Jeff Harnly, Plant Manager at Xcel Energy in Minnesota, +1 651 385-5603 for more information on opportunites and how to get on their bidding list.
They are currently looking into boiler optimization techniques for all of their facilities.
Xcel owns and operates 3 facilities: Xcel Energy Red Wing Steam Plant in Red Wing, MN; Xcel Energy Wilmarth Plant in Mankato, MN and Xcel Energy La Crosse County Resource Recovery Facility in La Crosse, WI.
Xcel Energy
Contact Ted Hoefler, VP Operations or Scott Whitney, VP Business Development, +1 973 882 9000 for discussions on opportunities.
They perform continuous expansions and upgrades of existing facilities. They have a technology license agreement with Martin Gmbh which means they supply them with all the stoker grate equipment and air pollution equipment.
The largest waste-to-energy operator in the U.S. Currently operates 31 waste-to-energy facilities. The headquarter is in Fairfield, NY.
Covanta
Equipment purchase proceduresUpgrades/expansionsDescriptionOperator
::Source: STC Interviews Appendix C
70:
UPGRADES AND EXPANSIONS OF EXISTING WTE FACILITIES 2(5)- Municipal facilities
Contact John Helmers, Plant Manager and Project Leader for the expansion, +1 507 328 7070 for discussions on how to participate in the bidding process.
They will start an expansion project in order to double the size of the plant. A bidding process will start by the end of 2007-beginning of 2008.
See separate description in this appendixOlmsted Waste-to-Energy Facility, Rochester, MN
Contact Edie Schmidt, Procurement Specialist, +1 515 239 5183 or [email protected] to receive a copy of their Vendor Application.
They do routine maintenance, but no new expansions or upgrades at the moment.
See separate description in this appendixAmes Municipal Electric Utility, Ames, IA
They have vendors they’ve worked with for a long time and they are satisfied with their products and services. Brian Schmidt, Plant Manager, is responsible for purchase decisions. He can be reached at +1 218 346 4404.
They are expanding their facility and adding one new boiler. They are however already set on technologies and vendors to use.
See separate description in this appendixPerham Resource Recovery Facility, Perham, MN
Contact Matt Eaton, Supervising Engineer, +1 323 721 1278, ext. 4008 for information about opportunities and how to get on their bidding list.
They do routine maintenance, but no new expansions or upgrades at the moment.
See separate description in this appendixCommerce Refuse-to-Energy Facility, Los Angeles, CA
Equipment purchase proceduresUpgrades/expansionsDescriptionFacility
::Source: STC Interviews Appendix C
71:
UPGRADES AND EXPANSIONS OF EXISTING WTE FACILITIES 3(5)- Municipal facilities
They Plant Manager, Frank Wisser, +1 315 591 9282, says he prefers if companies interested in becoming vendors send them a mail with information about products and reference customers. He thinks it’s an advantage if you have an American partner compared to selling direct from Europe.
They did a large upgrade 8 years ago and have nothing planned for the near future.
See separate description in this appendixOswego County Energy Recovery Facility, Fulton, NY
Contact the Plant Manager Jeff Huppert, +1 651 385 3658 to discuss future needs and how to get on their bidding list.
No upgrades or expansions at the moment.
See separate description in this appendixRed Wing Resource Recovery Facility, Red Wing, MN
Contact the Plant Manager Bill Wilson, +1 218 435 6501, to present your technology. They use competitive bidding for their upgrades.
No upgrades or expansions at the moment.
See separate description in this appendixPolk County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Plant, Fosston, MN
Contact the Plant Manager Peter Olmscheid, +1 320 763 9340, to discuss future needs.
They are currently expanding. A new combustor, boiler and air pollution control system will be installed during next year. They are finalizing the bidding process and are basically set on which technologies and vendors to use.
See separate description in this appendixPope/Douglas Solid Waste Management, Alexandria, MN
Equipment purchase proceduresUpgrades/expansionsDescriptionFacility
::Source: STC Interviews Appendix C
72:
UPGRADES AND EXPANSIONS OF EXISTING WTE FACILITIES 4(5)- Municipal facilities
Contact the Plant Manager Wayne Hanson, + 1 763 441 3121, for information about future needs and how to get on their bidding list.
No upgrades or expansions at the moment.
See separate description in this appendixGreat River Energy: Elk River Station Waste-to-Energy, Elk River, MN
Contact the Chief Engineer Kevin Trytek, +1 207 773 6465, for information about how to get on their bidding list.
No upgrades or expansions at the moment.
See separate description in this appendixGreater Portland Resource Recovery Facility, Portland, ME
Contact Charlie Honecker +1 540 434 5928 for discussion on future opportunities.
No upgrades or expansions at the moment.
See separate description in this appendixHarrisonburg Resource Recovery Facility, Harrisonburg, VA
They do currently not have a Plant Manager. The Maintenance Manager Bill Myers, +1 757 865 1914, is responsible for operations at the moment.
The did a large upgrade last year and it will probably take a while before they do a new one.
See separate description in this appendixHampton – NASA Steam Plant, Hampton, VA
Contac the Plant Manager Al Canady, +1 910 798 4435 for information on future needs and opportunities.
No upgrades or expansions planned at the moment, but it might change in the near future depending on 2008 funding.
See separate description in this appendixNew Hanover County – Wastec, Wilmington, NC
Equipment purchase proceduresUpgrades/expansionsDescriptionFacility
::Source: STC Interviews Appendix C
73:
UPGRADES AND EXPANSIONS OF EXISTING WTE FACILITIES 5(5)- Municipal facilities
Contact Plant Manager John Watson, +1 801 614 5603, for information about future needs.
No upgrades or expansions planned at the moment, but it might change in the near future depending on next year funding.
See separate description in this appendixWasatch Integrated Waste Management District, Layton, UT
Equipment purchase proceduresUpgrades/expansionsDescriptionFacility
::Source: STC Interviews Appendix C
74
WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITIES IN THE U.S. 1(11)
Source: The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants
KEY TERMS:
• Design capacity – The rated capacity for each unit housed at a facility. The number of units at a facility followed by the capacity for each unit. The total daily design is also provided
• Technology –The furnace technology used at a facilityMBWW: Mass Burn, Water Wall furnaceMBRW: Mass Burn, Refractory Wall furnaceMCU: Modular Combustion UnitRWW: Rotary Water Wall combustorRRW: Rotary bed combustion chamber, Refractory WallRDF: Refuse-Derived Fuel facility that burns the RDF previously processed from trashSSWW: Spreader Stoker, Water Wall furnace
• Project startup – The actual year of commercial startup• Owner – The current owner of the facility
Appendix C
75
WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITIES IN THE U.S. 2(11)
Source: The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants
1991
1995
1987
1988
1989
1988
1987
1990
1995
Project Status/Startup Year
Covanta Company of Southeastern Connecticut
MBWW2x344.5=689CTPrestonSoutheastern Connecticut Resource Recovery Facility
Eastern Connecticut Resource Recovery Authority
MBWW2x250=500CTLisbonRiley Energy Systems of Lisbon Connecticut Corp.
Connecticut Resource Recovery Authority
RDF-SSWW3x666.6=2000CTHartfordMid-Connecticut Resource Recovery Facility
Covanta Bristol, Inc.MBWW2x325=650CTBristolBristol Resource Recovery Facility
Covanta Stanislaus, Inc.MBWW2x400=800CACrows LandingStanislaus County Resource Recovery Facility
City of Long BeachMBWW3x460=1380CALong BeachSoutheast Resource Recovery Facility (SERRF)
Commerce Refuse-to-Energy Authority
MBWW1x350=350CACommerceCommerce Refuse-to-Energy Facility
City of Huntsville Solid Waste Disposal Authority
MBWW2x345=690ALHuntsvilleHuntsville Solid Waste-to-Energy Facility
Eileson Airforce BaseRDF (co-fired in Coal Boiler)
5x2=10AKNorth PoleEielson Airforce Base
OwnerTechnology TypeDesign Capacity (Unit & Total TPD)
StateCityFacility Name
Appendix C
76Source: The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants
1989
1979
1985
1994
1991
1987
1987
1988
1989
Project Status/Startup Year
Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County
RDF - SSWW2x900=1800FLWest Palm Beach
North County Resource Recovery Facility
Miami-Dade CountyRDF - SSWW4x648=2592FLMiamiMiami-Dade County Resource Recovery Facility
City of TampaMBWW4x250=1000FLTampaMcKay Bay Refuse-to-Energy Facility
Lee CountyMBWW2x600; 1x636=1836FLFort MyersLee County Resource Recovery Facility
Covanta Lake, Inc.MBWW2x264=528FLOkahumpkaLake County Resource Recovery Facility
Hillsborough CountyMBWW2x600=1200FLTampaHillsborough County Resource Recovery Facility
Bay CountyRWW2x250=500FLPanama CityBay County Resource Recovery Center
WheelabratorTechnologies Inc.
MBWW3x750=2250CTBridgeportWheelabrator Bridgeport Company, L.P.
Connecticut Resource Recovery Authority
MBRW3x140=420CTWallingfordWallingford Resource Recovery Facility
OwnerTechnology TypeDesign Capacity (Unit & Total TPD)
StateCityFacility Name
WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITIES IN THE U.S. 3(11)
Appendix C
77Source: The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants
1989
1988
1975
1990
1987
1991
1991
1983
1991
Project Status/Startup Year
City of HaverhillMBWW2x825=1650MAHaverhillHaverhill Resource Recovery Facility
Marion CountyMBWW3x787.3=2362INIndianapolisIndianapolis Resource Recovery Facility
City of AmesRDF-Pulverized Coal WW1x175=175IAAmesAmes Municipal Electric Utility
City & County of HonoluluRDF-SSWW2x925.5=1851HIHonoluluHonolulu Resource Recovery Venture—HPOWER
Montenay Savannah Limited Partnership
MBWW2x250=500GASavannahMontenay Savannah Operations, Inc.
WheelabratorTechnologies Inc.
MBWW3x750=2250FLFt. LauderdaleWheelabrator South Broward, Inc.
WheelabratorTechnologies Inc.
MBWW3x750=2250FLPompano Beach
Wheelabrator North Broward, Inc.
Pinellas CountyMBWW3x1000=3000FLSt. PetersburgPinellas County Resource Recovery Facility
Pasco CountyMBWW3x350=1050FLSpring HillPasco County Resource Recovery Facility
OwnerTechnology TypeDesign Capacity (Unit & Total TPD)
StateCityFacility Name
WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITIES IN THE U.S. 4(11)
Appendix C
78Source: The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants
1995
1988
1985
1975
1985
1987
1989
1981
1988
Project Status/Startup Year
Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority
MBWW3x600=1800MDDickersonMontgomery County Resource Recovery Facility
Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority
MCU4x90=360MDJoppaHarford Waste-to-Energy Facility
John Hancock Life Insurance Company
MBWW3x750=2250MDBaltimoreBaltimore Refuse Energy Systems Company (BRESCO)
Wheelabrator Saugus, J.V.MBWW2x750=1500MASaugusWheelabrator Saugus, J.V.
Wheelabrator North Andover Inc.
MBWW2x750=1500MANorth AndoverWheelabrator North Andover Inc.
CITMBWW2x750=1500MAMillburyWheelabrator Millbury Inc.
Covanta SEMASS, L.P.RDF-SSWW3x900=2700MAWest Wareham
SEMASS Resource Recovery Facility
eco/Pittsfield , L.L.C.MBRW3x120=360 (design); 3x80=240 (actual practice)
MAPittsfieldPittsfield Resource Recovery Facility
eco/Springfield L.L.C. MBRW3x136=408 (design); 3x120=360 (permit)
MAAgawamPioneer Valley Resource Recovery Facility
OwnerTechnology TypeDesign Capacity (Unit & Total TPD)
StateCityFacility Name
WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITIES IN THE U.S. 5(11)
Appendix C
79Source: The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants
1989
1989
1990
1987
1991
1988
1992
1987
1988
Project Status/Startup Year
Hennepin CountyMBWW2x606=1212MNMinneapolisHennepin Energy Resource Co.
Great River Energy (Rural Electric Gen/Trans Coop)
RDF - SSWW2x250; 1x500=1000MNElk RiverGreat River Energy - Elk River Station
Kent CountyMBWW2x312.5=625MIGrand RapidsKent County Waste-to-Energy Facility
Jackson CountyMBWW2x100=200MIJacksonJackson County Resource Recovery Facility
City of Detroit, MI (GDRRA)
RDF-SSWW3x944=2832MIDetroitGreater Detroit Resource Recovery Facility
USA Energy Group LLC; PERC Holdings LLC; Communities
RDF2x750=1500MEOrringtonPenobscot Energy Recovery Corp.
Mid-Maine Waste Action Corporation
RWW2x100=200MEAuburnMid-Maine Waste Action Corporation
Casella Waste SystemsRDF - SSWW2x300=600MEBiddefordMaine Energy Recovery Company
ecomaineMBWW2x275=550MEPortlandGreater Portland Resource Recovery Facility
OwnerTechnology TypeDesign Capacity (Unit & Total TPD)
StateCityFacility Name
WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITIES IN THE U.S. 6(11)
Appendix C
80Source: The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants
1987
1984 (units 1&2); 1991 (unit 3)
1987
1988
1983
1987
1988
1986; 2002 (upgrade)
1987
Project Status/Startup Year
Wheelabrator Claremont, L.P.
MBWW2x100=200NHClaremontWheelabrator Claremont Co, L.P.
New Hanover CountyMBWW2x100; 1x300= 500NCWilmingtonNew Hanover County-Wastec
Xcel EnergyRDF - SSWW2x360=720MNMankatoXcel Energy-WilmarthPlant
Xcel EnergyRDF - SSWW2x360=720MNRed WingXcel Energy - Red Wing Steam Plant
City of Red WingMCU2x45=90MNRed WingRed Wing Resource Recovery Facility
Pope/Douglas Solid Waste Management Board
MCU2x40=80MNAlexandriaPope/Douglas Solid Waste Management
Polk CountyMCU2x40=80MNFosstonPolk County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Plant
City of PerhamMCU2x58=116MNPerhamPerham Resource Recovery Facility
Olmsted CountyMBWW2x100=200MNRochesterOlmsted Waste-to-Energy Facility
OwnerTechnology TypeDesign Capacity (Unit & Total TPD)
StateCityFacility Name
WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITIES IN THE U.S. 7(11)
Appendix C
81Source: The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants
1989
1988
1989
1990
1988
1994
1990
1991
1989
Project Status/Startup Year
Town of HempsteadMBWW3x890.3=2671NYWestburyHempstead Resource Recovery Facility
Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency
RWW2x225=450NYPoughkeepsieDutchess County Resource Recovery Facility
Covanta Babylon, Inc.MBWW2x375=750NYBabylonBabylon Resource Recovery Facility
Wheelabrator Gloucester Inc.
MBWW2x287=575NJWestvilleWheelabrator Gloucester Company, L.P.
Covanta Warren Energy Resource Co, L.P.
MBWW2x200=400NJOxford Township
Warren Energy Resource Company
Union County Utility Authority
MBWW3x480=1440NJRahwayUnion County Resource Recovery Facility
Covanta Energy Corporation
MBWW3x933=2800NJNewarkEssex County Resource Recovery Facility
Camden County Energy Recovery Associates
MBWW3x350=1050NJCamdenCamden Resource Recovery Facility
Wheelabrator Concord, L.P.
MBWW2x288=575NHPenacookWheelabrator Concord Company, L.P.
OwnerTechnology TypeDesign Capacity (Unit & Total TPD)
StateCityFacility Name
WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITIES IN THE U.S. 8(11)
Appendix C
82Source: The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants
1992
1986
1984
1991
1985
1995
1996
1989
1991
Project Status/Startup Year
Covanta Delaware Valley, L.P.
RWW6x448=2688PAChesterDelaware Valley Resource Recovery Facility
Covanta Marion Inc.MBWW2x275=550ORBrooksMarion County Solid Waste-to-Energy Facility
WheelabratorTechnologies Inc.
MBWW3x750=2250NYPeekskillWheelabrator Westchester Company, L.P.
Warren & Washington Counties Industrial Development Agency
MBWW2x220=440NYHudson FallsWheelabrator Hudson Falls Inc.
Oswego CountyMCU4x50=200NYFultonOswego County Energy Recovery Facility
Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency
MBWW3x330=990NYJamesvilleOnondaga County Resource Recovery Facility
Covanta Energy Corporation
MBWW2x1100=2200NYNiagra FallsNiagara Falls Resource Recovery Facility
Islip Resource Recovery Agency
RWW2x243=486NYRonkonkomaMacArthur Waste-to-Energy Facility
Covanta Huntington, Inc.MBWW3x250=750NYEast NorthportHuntington Resource Recovery Facility
OwnerTechnology TypeDesign Capacity (Unit & Total TPD)
StateCityFacility Name
WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITIES IN THE U.S. 9(11)
Appendix C
83Source: The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants
1980
1988
1986
1989
1989
1994
1992
1991
2006 (retrofit completion; startup)
Project Status/Startup Year
NASA & City of HamptonMBWW2x120=240VAHamptonHampton-NASA Steam Plant
Covanta Arlington/Alexandria, Inc.
MBWW3x325=975VAAlexandriaAlexandria/Arlington Resource Recovery Facility
Wasatch Integrated Waste Management District
MBRW2x200=400UTLaytonWasatch Integrated Waste Management District
AT&TMBWW2x300=600SCCharlestonMontenay Charleston Resource Recovery Inc.
York County Solid Waste Authority
MBWW3x448=1344PAYorkYork Resource Recovery Center/Montenay York
Wheelabrator Falls Inc.MBWW2x750=1500PAMorrisvilleWheelabrator Falls Inc.
Montenay Montgomery Limited Partnership
MBWW2x600=1200PAConshohockenMontenay Energy Resources of Montgomery County, Inc.
Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority
MBWW3x600=1800PABainbridgeLancaster County Resource Recovery Facility
City of HarrisburgMBWW3x267=801PAHarrisburgHarrisburg Resource Recovery Facility
OwnerTechnology TypeDesign Capacity (Unit & Total TPD)
StateCityFacility Name
WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITIES IN THE U.S. 10(11)
Appendix C
84Source: The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants
1987
1986
1991
1988
1990
1982
Project Status/Startup Year
Xcel EnergyRDF - SSWW (co-fired with wood waste)
2x200=400WILaCrosseXcel Energy French Island Generating Plant
Barron CountyMCU2x50=100WIAlmenaBarron County Waste-to-Energy & Recycling Facility
City of SpokaneMBWW2x400=800WASpokaneSpokane Regional Solid Waste Disposal Facility
Southeastern Public Service Authority
RDF-SSWW4x500=2000VAPortsmouthSoutheastern Public Service Authority of Virginia
Covanta Fairfax, Inc.MBWW4x750=3000VALortonI-95 Energy-Resource Recovery Facility (Fairfax)
City of HarrisonburgMBRW2x100=200VAHarrisonburgHarrisonburg Resource Recovery Facility
OwnerTechnology TypeDesign Capacity (Unit & Total TPD)
StateCityFacility Name
WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITIES IN THE U.S. 11(11)
Appendix C
85
• Executive summary
• Introduction and background
• Waste-to-Energy
• Conclusions
• Appendix– A List of interviewed people– B Renewable Energy in the U.S. – general information– C Waste-to-energy facilities, upgrades and expansions– D Technical issues– E Legal issues– F Venture capital
CONTENT
86
THERE ARE THREE MAIN COMPONENTS IN A WTE FACILITIES- The grate system, the boiler system and the gas cleaning system
Appendix DSource: Fisia Babcock Environment
Waste reception
Grate system
Ash extraction system
Boiler system Gas cleaning system Stack
87
• Executive summary
• Introduction and background
• Waste-to-Energy
• Conclusions
• Appendix– A List of interviewed people– B Renewable Energy in the U.S. – general information– C Waste-to-energy facilities, upgrades and expansions– D Technical issues– E Legal issues– F Venture capital
CONTENT
88
IT IS IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER LEGAL MATTERS WHEN DOING BUSINESS ON THE U.S. MARKET
Legal concerns are common among Swedish companies considering the U.S. market. However, these are risks that any company active on the U.S. market are exposed to and that can be accounted for. Nevertheless, it is important to address legal matters in an appropriate way
Find a U.S. lawyer that know the industry well and can assist you in addressing necessary issuesEstablish a U.S. subsidiary will facilitate doing business with U.S. companies and can also limit liability for the Swedish aktiebolagHave a U.S. lawyer review contracts in order to make sure that protection is really protective of your companyGet insurance that is adequate to cover the risk and project
Source: STC interviews Appendix E
More information is also available online www.swedishtrade.se/usaand by contacting the Swedish Trade Council in the U.S.
89
• Executive summary
• Introduction and background
• Waste-to-Energy
• Conclusions
• Appendix– A List of interviewed people– B Renewable Energy in the U.S. – general information– C Waste-to-energy facilities, upgrades and expansions– D Technical issues– E Legal issues– F Venture capital
CONTENT
90
EXAMPLES OF U.S. VENTURE CAPITAL FIRMS INVESTING IN RENEWABLE ENERGY 1(2)
Source: Desk research
Web addressCompany
www.globalenvironmentfund.comGlobal Environmental Fund
www.expansioncapital.comExpansion Capital Partners
www.ecpcapital.comEnvironmental Capital ECP
www.enertechcapital.comEnertech Capital
www.cleantech.comCleantech Group
https://www.citigroupai.comCitigroup Venture Capital International
www.chrysalix.comChrysalix Energy
www.bluehillpartners.comBlue Hill Partners
www.3i.com 3i
Appendix F
91
EXAMPLES OF U.S. VENTURE CAPITAL FIRMS INVESTING IN RENEWABLE ENERGY 2(2)
Source: Desk research
Web addressCompany
www.vpvp.comVantage Point Venture Partners
www.technologypartners.comTechnology Partners
www.svb.comSilicon Valley Bank
www.sequoiacap.com/usSequoia
www.rockportcap.comRockport Capital Partners
www.nthpower.comNth Power LLC
www.ngenpartners.comNGEN Partners LLC
www.morganstanley.comMorgan Stanley
www.mdv.comMohr Davidow Ventures
www.kpcb.comKleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Appendix F
92
EXAMPLES OF SWEDISH VENTURE CAPITAL FIRMS INVESTING IN RENEWABLE ENERGY
Source: Desk research, IDG
www.dealflower.comGreencap Cleantech Venture Partner
www.providerventure.comProvider Venture Partner
www.industrifonden.seIndustrifonden
www.borevind.seBorevind
www.stechfund.comSustainable Technology Fund
Web addressCompany
Appendix F